Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:03:44 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 80 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 04:03:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3286395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DiA3yN87b4xq35SH649zJ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JNQuT0iGLT16+1zcd+uIuo493JE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5194 On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> >>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>> >>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>> >>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS >>>> POST >>> >>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> > > > > Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer